Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Thanks again Checkfan. We knew the advertising was there, now we have proof.
Here is a video of the high-speed train with the JB&ZJMY name if anyone missed it.
http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMjk5Mzc4NzMyMA==.html?spm=a2h0k.8191407.0.0&from=s1.8-1-1.2
Here is the link to the train video and article if you missed that before. Paste in Google Chrome and translate.
http://www.jingtezmt.com/baorun/vip_doc/4809309.html
The company "responded" to FINRA's request so the 90 day rule for not responding should not apply.
Honestly I don't know why we had to refile. My educated guess would be we passed some dates on the FINRA paperwork, like passing the effective date of ticker change. Hence the need to refile the FINRA Forms with a new effective date.
There may be some overall time limit for pending corporate actions, but I haven't found it in the FINRA Manual. There's examples of companies that took longer than ZJMY, so I'm not sure why FINRA would give the company the August 25 deadline for submitting paperwork.
I'm not going to hazard a guess on dates. I'm holding until some material events happen.
I don't believe the 5 and 60 day time frames are correct.
FINRA has no shot clock. They can take several months in between comments according to an article in my post below.
Also, a company has 90 days to respond to FINRA's request or their pending action will lapse and be closed.
That's straight out of the FINRA Manual on rule 6490.
LMD, are there newer timelines giving the 5 and 60 day limits I haven't been able to find?
I think we agree that FINRA can take their sweet time.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=133982092
Agree. I would be interested to know what type of agreements are in place.
My personal opinion is that ZJMY will share the battery tech with their OEMs as part of that win-win strategy. It will be more of a balanced-trade IMO.
I could see the OEMs structuring a contract where they make "X" amount of bodies and frames for ZJMY, and ZJMY provides "Y" amount of batteries and motors for use in the OEM's own lines. There may be very little cash exchanging hands. If they just end up being manufacturing contracts, ZJMY will easily cover the costs with orders IMO.
Why would these OEM companies provide EV bodies to the company (ZJMY) with the best battery tech and let their own EV lines suffer? Short answer, they wouldn't. There has to be some sort of share agreement/contract to safeguard their own EV lines. They all talk about the "win-win" concept.
Quick choice for consumers:
Chery V3 body with Chery EV tech (range: 250 km maybe)
Chery V3 body with ZJMY EV 3.0 Tech (range: 500-600+ km)
Tough decision.
Chery's own EV lines are vastly improving but still pale in comparison to ZJMY's tech.
Ka Wei another OEM for ZJMY!?
Paste in Google Chrome and translate or click English on the Ka Wei website.
http://en.kaweigroup.com/
From the wechat article Checkfan posted:
The next positive news should be a PR announcing the Reverse Merger (APO) under TRKG news on OTCmarkets.
If the merger involves a name change, it will need to be reported (as a filed corporate action) to/with FINRA. A name change is also a corporate action that requires forms to be filled out with FINRA.
The company could elect to keep the same name and ticker. I suspect they will change the company name to HD International Holdings Group and put in a Voluntary Symbol Change request with FINRA.
Here is a good article about how the RM process works, and how a company can fast track to NASDAQ by doing a firm commitment underwriting aka bought deal. An APO is a bought deal as I understand with a simultaneous PIPE. See APO on wiki.
https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=24160
Yep. Checkfan's Stickied post is new.
Agree. If JB&ZJMY ends up doing a firm commitment underwriting (bought deal), the investment banks interested will vet the company in extensive detail. The banks do a high level DD process since they take on all liability of the bought deal transaction.
Good question. I haven't found the definitive answer for that.
Maybe when ZJMY was acquired on 1/11/2017.
The OEM production model is expanding as expected.
7/9/2017
I agree. Replace mine.
Share price doesn't matter if they do a firm commitment underwriting, aka bought deal.
Choi and I have posted on this before.
No one year seasoning period on OTC required. No need to maintain a minimum share price. It could happen in as few as 4 months.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=133035767
Nice article. Always good DD from you.
It is all on the July 14 WY SOS Name Change with Other Changes PDF document, except the last paragraph. Click History and then the PDF symbol to see the document.
https://wyobiz.wy.gov/business/FilingDetails.aspx?eFNum=217161243108068011203050228075228024036162237117
The introductory paragraph of the ShareHolder Letter obviously wasn't on the WY SOS document either btw.
Note the first paragraph of the Shareholder Letter.
We heard you and have read the 90 day "lapse" rule.
Agree on your post except that the 90 day lapse rule should not apply since we are disclosing information to FINRA. According to an earlier post, FINRA will not close the request while they are reviewing the submitted information.
Since the company responded to FINRA's requests and submitted the SEC filings on August 9, 2017, the 90 day lapse rule would not come into play if FINRA is still in the review process IMO. I don't believe FINRA will lapse a company in the exchange process between comment letters from FINRA and information submissions by the company (FINRA could take 90 days to respond if they wanted, no shot clock).
We have submitted all that FINRA currently has requested according to RO conversation with some on this board. .
I don't think they would lapse a company's request if FINRA took longer than 90 days to review (which can happen), even if no additional information was requested. That would be a low blow by FINRA. "Sorry, we took 91 days to review your paperwork, please refile per the 90 day lapse rule."
I don't know why they would have to refile, unless we have passed the effective date of the corporate actions now.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=134093635
Have a good weekend longs.
I could care less if ticker happens Monday, three weeks or two months from now.
Patience will pay IMO.
I, for one, am glad we aren't getting play by play tweets or fluff PRs from management.
RO will not release a PR under "DOLV". He can only release what Wang and company allow, unless he wants to lose his job.
I say bring on the stop sign and another comment letter from FINRA. I would like to buy more at even more discounted prices (note to self, don't be greedy).
So close, just one more sentence.
LOL. OK.
Feel free to do your own DD and research.
A couple are Nasdaq but I posted them to show even NASDAQ companies can announce a ticker change prior to it being posted on a daily list.
Most companies release the PR the day the ticker change becomes effective, or the day before (when it hits the daily list) or one day after it becomes effective. This makes the most sense since the ticker change would have the most impact without a play by play.
Below are examples of companies that posted a PR prior to to it hitting the daily list.
https://www.dailymarijuanaobserver.com/single-post/2016/10/22/420-Property-Management-Announces-Appointment-of-CEO-and-FINRA-Approvals
http://cgeenergy.com/news/article/cge-energy-announces-finra-approval-of-name-change-symbol-change-and-revers
http://us-stemcell.com/u-s-stem-cell-inc-fka-bioheart-inc-receives-finra-approval-for-reverse-split-and-name-change/
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/drew-industries-announces-upcoming-name-and-ticker-symbol-change-300381519.html
Aug 1 ticker change announced on June 1.
http://www.csnews.com/product-categories/fuels/tesoro-changing-company-name-andeavor
https://www.google.com/amp/www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/a4e2ce7d-801d-4c7f-86fa-9dba58fe986b
OTE PR
I disagree. I've seen companies release a PR stating they have been approved by FINRA well before (days or weeks even)it shows up on the daily list.
Agree, but the next FINRA comment letter could say, "No more information is required, congratulations your corporate actions have been approved and will be effected on..."
Agree that there are stipulations with the SEC, but a firm commitment underwriting or bought deal can be done in as little as about 4 months. The company could currently have a "PIPE" going on we don't know about.
I'm shooting for name and ticker change first.
By my research, it can be any investment bank whether foreign or domestic, that has the capital to cover a bought deal.
So yes, Jinbo Investment Holding Group or associated investment banks could do the bought deal IMO. My guess, if the company does a bought deal, would be a third party like the Central Bank of China who is already affiliated with Jinbo Investment Holding Group.
It could be several investment banks too.
Thanks Grizz.
RO's comments confirm many Longs' posts that no PRs under "DOLV". No reason to click the DOLV news tab on OTCmarkets until the name and ticker drops on FINRA's daily list.
As I have said all along, I expect the PR(s) the day of or the day after ticker change.
We know from your post that FINRA put the 25th out there for the company to disclose all the required information. It may or may not be the actual effective date of name and ticker change.
Why would FINRA arbitrarily put out the 25th? There must be some reason for it. The name and ticker change would be an excellent reason.
I have a few questions on the "IPO" references. Since you have a good rapport with RO.
Wang Jinlai produced a concert last year! You think you know a guy!
The concert was held October 2, 2016. Wang is a good charitable guy.
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzA3ODEwNzExMQ==&mid=2664103663&idx=1&sn=472f44d2606daa857d1f5696ea9811ba#rd
Jinbo Investment Holding Group's Amoy Mall Sales up 40%.
Not a new article, but I must have missed it.
Paste in google Chrome and translate (I provided the translation below):
http://tech.china.com/article/20170626/2017062635947.html
The merger agreement has taken place but the corporate actions related to the merger have not been finalized or approved by FINRA, in my understanding.
Remember an acquisition/merger involving a name change is a corporate action requiring it to be reported and filed with FINRA. The name and ticker change is an optional part of the merger process (an acquisition/merger doesn't require a company name and ticker to be changed).
http://www.finra.org/industry/faq-upc-corporate-actions-faq#3-2
Reverse Psychology. P&D with no pump or dump.
Here's your audit:
From the Audited 10-K
Maybe the eclipse didn't happen yesterday.
Maybe it was a circular UFO that flew in front of the sun. Maybe a tiny LED screen on everyone's eclipse glasses, timed to show a preconcocted eclipse video based on GPS location from a locator on everyone's glasses.
I don't know maybe none of this happened with DOLV(sarcasm implied):
DOLV FACTS in chronological order (from most recent):
08/10/17: First shareholder receives and posts "Notice to Shareholders of Dolat Ventures, Inc" from Mr. Wang (8/11/17 Mr. Oravec tells me any NOBO shareholder as of 8/1/17 should be getting this letter):
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=133751259
08/09/17: Four SEC financial filings updated with "SUBSEQUENT EVENTS" - 10K for Period Ending 2/28/13 and three 10Qs for Periods Ending 5/31/13, 8/31/13 and 11/30/13:
http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/DOLV/filings
From 10-K
Thanks for the updates. $150,000 for the 2013 filings. Does that include the cost of the 10-K or just the 10-Qs? We know they had the cash to cover it.
I agree ticker may be JBZH. Scottrade has shown JBZH#9 in their system as a placeholder since May. I asked my broker a couple weeks ago, and they still show that.
Add your second post about the filing cost to the first post and I think it deserves a sticky.
Jinbo awarded "Consumer Economics Research and Innovation Demonstration Base" from July 25 article.
Not a brand new article but one I haven't seen before about Wang Jinlai and Jin Bo. Happy Birthday Hawk.
Jin Bo Article
A company can file for a 5 day extension on a Quarterly Report and a 15 day extension on an Annual Report.
https://www.otcmarkets.com/marketplaces/otc-pink
August 25, 2017 must be the "Effective Date" IMO.
Under FINRA Rule 6490 Processing of Company-Related Actions there is no time limit by what I can see other than the 90 day "lapse" rule.
FINRA Manual - Rule 6490
IMO, I believe ZJMY has avoided the FINRA 90 day "lapse" rule by adequately responding to FINRA's requests for more information by submitting the 10-K and 10-Qs. However, we can't be guaranteed FINRA won't request even more additional information.
IMO, The August 25 date must have been the "Effective Date" put on the FINRA Issuer Company-Related Action Notification Form submitted by ZJMY's representative.
From ShareHolder Letter
I see what you are saying.
The company has 90 days to "sufficiently respond" to FINRA's request for additional information. I would not think the 90 day "lapse" rule would apply with ZJMY, since they have adequately responded to FINRA, IMO. However, what dictates a sufficient response in FINRA's subjective mind is another matter.
After rereading the rule, FINRA may deem a response insufficient. It is crazy since, FINRA can take months to reply or comment back to the company after the company submits additional information.
Nice try. Wealthy people run successful businesses.
The majority of well-run companies are managed by wealthy people. Their companies made the CEO's and Presidents wealthy. The companies were successful because of their leader's vision and talents.
Wang Dequn is wealthy because his companies have made him wealthy. His (Jinbo's) companies are successful because he knows what he is doing. It's pretty simple.
Wrong in the majority of successful companies!!!
Agree, however FINRA can take months between comments.
FINRA has no timelines (for themselves), only the rule that if a company doesn't respond to their comments within 90 days, the corporate action will lapse. ZJMY has responded to FINRA's request so we know that the 90 day rule doesn't apply.
FINRA Manual - Rule 6490
I believe ZJMY has its own battery swap tech as the business plan covers. That doesn't mean that they won't use existing manufacturers for battery swapping systems or parts of those systems. ZJMY may contract the company from the article to produce the swapping robot to ZJMY's specs. That's what manufacturers do, they build things to suit their client's needs.
The company in the article I posted would want ZJMY's business. See how the article mentions products for manufacturers. That company is trying to sell itself. For battery swap stations to explode across China, a bunch of EV companies (or the government) need to buy in on the idea. There is safety in numbers; the more companies the promote the battery swap stations, the better IMO.
Xlogit posted the site that is the source of that document a while ago. Here is the post:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=132499217
What you found was a document probably put together by xlogit or somebody else for the reddit board.
Quick Battery replacement system!!
Maybe this company will make our battery swap technology. They already have a deal with Chery. Note: the article covers the four standard battery sizes, A, B, C and D, just like our battery swap video.
The article has some fantastic pictures so go to the link below the article.
If there was any doubt that ZJMY and Long Star have some sort of contracting agreement/partnership, the ZJMY company website should remove it.
From my understanding the Long Star produced V9 is a low speed SUV. I believe both Long Star and Chery will be producing SUV's for JB&ZJMY. Chery is providing the high speed Kay Wing V3 SUV model, and Long Star is providing the low speed V9 SUV model.
Note, the ZJMY website still has the technical parameters of the Chery V3 model with the Long Star V9 images. From Floridany's V9 commercial post, the V9 is slightly smaller and probably lighter than its Chery V3 counterpart with only a 150km range, by what I can decipher of the Chinese. The V9 Technical Parameters should be corrected/updated on the ZJMY website IMO.
My Translation of the V9 commercial IMO.(my phone seems to be too dumb to google translate images)
What I can gather is the V9 is a low speed with 150 km range. It is 3900 mm long. Its 1750 mm wide by 1600 mm tall. It has a 150 AH battery consisting of a group of NINE 8 volt batteries for 72 Volts total. I'm not going to hazard a guess on the rest.
Can someone Please Translate the V9 commercial?
Chery's V3 SUV images are still on the website as well. The partnership/collaboration with Chery is evidently still ongoing. (I believe ZJMY are/will be contracting SUV's with both companies). It follows that Win-Win business mentality.
OEM MODEL at its finest.
Chery will produce the higher end, higher cost, high speed EV models, and Long Star will produce the lower end, lower cost, low speed EV models.
ZJMY V9 Commercial post by Floridany.
Long Star V9 Commercial. Note: mixed in the Chinese text, it says "SUV".
http://u4039022.zuodanye.maka.im/pcviewer/4DRDGAJ0
ZJMY Website with White Long Star V9 (with Long Star Emblem). I put a red arrow to the "Long Star" emblem to make it clear.
http://www.zjmy888.com/#page3
Prior ZJMY Website Image of Chery V3 with same Technical Parameters
Correct V9 Technical Parameters.
My Translation again.